"Who was Thomas Cranmer?"

[GKC]

How much paperwork can a retired aviation master have who’s been on vacation!? And sobering up? What kind of trip was this!? LOL What are you, Pippin or Merry?

My SIL brews beer, makes wine, and does a few other things. And after my 9 day visit to him. he is now visiting us.

As to paperwork, it’s roughly a ton. Bills, letters, deeds and such. And I’m off to the coast in roughly a month.

GKC, Ho! Ho! Ho! to the bottle I go

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I understand that, 1. Obviously Elizabeth’s reign dwarfed Mary’s. I’m not a Mary fan so you’re preaching to the choir. I’m simply saying that not only Elizabeth but MANY monarchs in the middle ages through the Renaissance had a taste for blood and violence. We don’t hear “bloody” attached to their names no matter how brief or extensive their reign was. You make a great point and I happen to not have a problem with Elizabeth. I think the ‘compromise’ she created for the Anglican Church gave more hope to the Catholic wing than existed in the time of Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer and the Catholic-hating squad. I also don’t like the way the pope dealt with Elizabeth either. She’s a fascinating person. But let’s face it, she didn’t have clean, blood-free hands. That’s all I’m saying. Per capita in proportion, yes, Mary was bloodier, but that’s speculative. I’m not a fan of ANY of these blood-letting operations. But it’s a fact that Anglicans weren’t pretty when it came to drawing and quartering priests, bishops, and other clergy. And the anti-Catholic persecutions under Elizabeth weren’t pretty either. It wasn’t a good time to be a Roman Catholic in England.

It’s basic history, Gurney. You should know that.

Mary reigned for 9 years; Elizabeth reigned for 45 years.

The reason Elizabeth is not remembered as “Bloody Elizabeth” is that she was immensely popular during her entire reign. By definitively defeating Spain’s attempts to invade and conquer England, she ended Spain’s attempts to conquer Europe. Her reign ushered in the Golden Age of England, which persisted until WWI and did not die until after WWII. That includes England’s domination of the seas, later defeat of the French, explorations, and her brilliant contributions to and virtual creation of English literature and the arts. The rise of England meant the downfall of Spain, and the ascendancy of *England, *not Spain, in the North American colonies, the colonization of North America by the English, not the Spanish, and the eventual evolution of the democracy in the United States of America, not the theocratic monarchies of New Spain. This country owes its democracy to its Founding Fathers who were almost all English, not Spanish, and virtually all Protestants.

The importance of the reign of Elizabeth I cannot be overestimated. All of this would have come to an end by her assassination. I think those around her realized that she was brilliant, like Henry was in his early days, and completely different from her two siblings. As her reign progressed, all of her supporters wanted their chief job to be finding her a husband, not having to protect her life from would-be martyrs, obeying a dangerous and incompetent pope.

 

[Zooey]

Zooey nerd:lover of trivia) thinks that the answer is “Elizabeth’s godfather”*.
*I hope!!!

Yes. Mary’s the leader of digging up dead people, cutting their heads off and setting them on fire after destroying their tomb. Elizabeth is the body count queen and her ability to stay alive despite the Vatican issuing death warrants against her is impressive indeed!

This has ***got ***to be the best ( anduch::takeoff: )description ever of both of them. Especially this:

the leader of digging up dead people, cutting their heads off and setting them on fire after destroying their tomb

 

[guanophore]

Funny that Bloody Mary comes up. Mary ordered the death, for heresy, of less people than Elizabeth. It was close to be sure, and though Mary’s reign was shorter, Elizabeth didn’t get started burning until a fair bit into her reign.

Roman Catholics are held to a higher standard,because they claim to represent the One True Church founded by Christ.

I don’t recall Jesus or the Apostles teaching that one should be sentenced to death for heresy, or anything else, for that matter.

 

[Jimmy_B]

Roman Catholics are held to a higher standard,because they claim to represent the One True Church founded by Christ.

I don’t recall Jesus or the Apostles teaching that one should be sentenced to death for heresy, or anything else, for that matter.

This is a good point. I brought this up earlier. Queen Mary was not a Catholic Pope and wasn’t ever the ruler of the Catholic Church. King Henry VIII acted first and Queen Mary responded after the fact. King Henry VIII was the absolute ruler of the Anglican Church of England, in essence, the first Protestant “Pope” and he did rule the early Protestant Church and when he ordered the death of Catholics, it was the official Church acting, with him as the head of that Church.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Henry never liked himself to a pope or even close. He and his contemporaries felt he was more in the mode of a Constantine, a ruler who helps guide and protect the Church and give some order as well as protection. He never claimed infallibility or universal jurisdiction over all bishops, never claimed himself of apostolic origin, etc. He was in the “godly prince” category that Luther would’ve characterized.

This is a good point. I brought this up earlier. Queen Mary was not a Catholic Pope and wasn’t ever the ruler of the Catholic Church. King Henry VIII acted first and Queen Mary responded after the fact. King Henry VIII was the absolute ruler of the Anglican Church of England, in essence, the first Protestant “Pope” and he did rule the early Protestant Church and when he ordered the death of Catholics, it was the official Church acting, with him as the head of that Church.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

And Orthodox bishops and Anglican bishops claim to be shepherds of the One, True Church as well so they would say that all should be held to a high standard, not just Catholic clergy.

Roman Catholics are held to a higher standard,because they claim to represent the One True Church founded by Christ.

I don’t recall Jesus or the Apostles teaching that one should be sentenced to death for heresy, or anything else, for that matter.

 

[Jimmy_B]

Henry never liked himself to a pope or even close. He and his contemporaries felt he was more in the mode of a Constantine, a ruler who helps guide and protect the Church and give some order as well as protection. He never claimed infallibility or universal jurisdiction over all bishops, never claimed himself of apostolic origin, etc. He was in the “godly prince” category that Luther would’ve characterized.

Lol… Yep, he guided the Church (the one he created) into granting him a divorce, after the Catholic Church refused. He ruled with absolute power, separating the Church of England from papal authority, and he caused the dissolution of the Monasteries, he also established himself as the Supreme Head of the Church of England. He changed religious ceremonies and rituals and suppressed the monasteries. Henry is famously remembered for having six wives—two of whom he had beheaded, executed. He “guided the Church”…that’s funny. He probably would have had you executed for making such a remark. King Henry VIII was a ruthless murderer. It is the Holy Spirit that is suppose to “guide” the Church, not a crazy king. If he was a “godly prince”, then you and I have a totally different idea of what the word “godly” means.

 

[Jimmy_B]

Here is an interesting document titled -

Cranmer’s Attitude to the Monarchy:
Royal Absolutism and the Godly Prince
Churchman 109/3 1995

By Maurice Elliott
This is the third of four articles by Maurice Elliott concerning Cranmer’s view of authority.

*“Where *the Reformers developed their notion of the ‘godly prince’”.

---

So much for Protestants having a problem with infallibility and papal authority…Apparently the Reformers believed that King Henry VIII possessed both characteristics, even though they didn’t use those “Catholic” words to describe their king and "godly prince’ and vicar … What’s the difference? It sure seems to me that there are a lot of semantics used to defend Protestantism, am I wrong?** **

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Oh, Jimmy, your lack of reading in Protestant studies is showing. I never said that he was a “godly prince,” but that he fancied himself one as did his subjects in the Lutheran ideal. Luther defined the role of a “godly prince” in his writings. Haven’t you ever read Luther’s “Secular Authority: To What Extent it should be Obeyed?” The Protestant vision of secular leadership in the authority of monarchs, princes, etc. are laid out there. I never said I thought Henry was a great guy. That’s a strawman. I said he envisioned himself, as did the people supporting him, as a type of Prince a la Luther or in the Constantinian vein.

You are correct that he did some dastardly things not only in his marital life but in the economic, religious, and political parts of his life. You’re incorrect when you say he changed religious ceremonies. Jimmy, he was considered to have been too Catholic by the Reformed wing of Anglicanism that wanted a Geneva-style Church of England. Henry didn’t touch a thing. Latin remained the tongue of the Mass, priests faced the altar, confession was encouraged and continued, Marian devotion remained, the priesthood, rosary and other sacramentals, etc. Only difference—Henry was in charge. It was the post-Henrican era of Edward VI and then Elizabeth I that shaped a more Protestant Church of England…

As far as the dissolution of the monastaries, sadly you’re correct. It was all about $$$ and power. Just as popes sucked the $$$ out of poor peasants with their promises of indulgences in the times of Luther, Henry was dollar signs with the real estate owned by the Catholic Church, and exploited it.

He was a murderer and a pig in so many ways, no arguments there.

I’m a bit curious as to why you think Henry would have me executed for saying that he guided the Church. I don’t think you know enough about the man to speculate on his actions, with all due respect. What books have you read on Henry and the English Reformation and why would he find offense in being a guide for a Church?

I recommend doing more reading on this character and the times in which he lived, looking at the Catholic offenses in England before and after Henry that stirred the pot. While the people of Great Britain were by no means ALL pro-Henry, the Brits by and large liked Edward and adored Elizabeth I. Look at the negatives on both sides and don’t just dwell on the bad character of one monarch. You’d get angry if we started up on the Medici popes, Borjas and other scoundrels, cheaters, murderers, adulterers that have occupied the papal chair so you can imagine Anglicans don’t like being defined by one overweight despot who isn’t exactly someone to be proud of.

Lol… Yep, he guided the Church (the one he created) into granting him a divorce, after the Catholic Church refused. He ruled with absolute power, separating Ithe Church of England from papal authority, and he caused the dissolution of the Monasteries, he also established himself as the Supreme Head of the Church of England. He changed religious ceremonies and rituals and suppressed the monasteries. Henry is famously remembered for having six wives—two of whom he had beheaded, executed. He “guided the Church”…that’s funny. He probably would have had you executed for making such a remark. King Henry VIII was a ruthless murderer. It is the Holy Spirit that is suppose to “guide” the Church, not a crazy king. If he was a “godly prince”, then you and I have a totally different idea of what the word “godly” means.

 

[GKC]

deleted.

GKC

 

[GKC]

Lol… Yep, he guided the Church (the one he created) into granting him a divorce, after the Catholic Church refused. He ruled with absolute power, separating the Church of England from papal authority, and he caused the dissolution of the Monasteries, he also established himself as the Supreme Head of the Church of England. He changed religious ceremonies and rituals and suppressed the monasteries. Henry is famously remembered for having six wives—two of whom he had beheaded, executed. He “guided the Church”…that’s funny. He probably would have had you executed for making such a remark. King Henry VIII was a ruthless murderer. It is the Holy Spirit that is suppose to “guide” the Church, not a crazy king. If he was a “godly prince”, then you and I have a totally different idea of what the word “godly” means.

Not divorce. Decree of nullity.

GKC

 

[GKC]

Oh, Jimmy, your lack of reading in Protestant studies is showing. I never said that he was a “godly prince,” but that he fancied himself one as did his subjects in the Lutheran ideal. Luther defined the role of a “godly prince” in his writings. Haven’t you ever read Luther’s “Secular Authority: To What Extent it should be Obeyed?” The Protestant vision of secular leadership in the authority of monarchs, princes, etc. are laid out there. I never said I thought Henry was a great guy. That’s a strawman. I said he envisioned himself, as did the people supporting him, as a type of Prince a la Luther or in the Constantinian vein.

You are correct that he did some dastardly things not only in his marital life but in the economic, religious, and political parts of his life. You’re incorrect when you say he changed religious ceremonies. Jimmy, he was considered to have been too Catholic by the Reformed wing of Anglicanism that wanted a Geneva-style Church of England. Henry didn’t touch a thing. Latin remained the tongue of the Mass, priests faced the altar, confession was encouraged and continued, Marian devotion remained, the priesthood, rosary and other sacramentals, etc. Only difference—Henry was in charge. It was the post-Henrican era of Edward VI and then Elizabeth I that shaped a more Protestant Church of England…

As far as the dissolution of the monastaries, sadly you’re correct. It was all about $$$ and power. Just as popes sucked the $$$ out of poor peasants with their promises of indulgences in the times of Luther, Henry was dollar signs with the real estate owned by the Catholic Church, and exploited it.

He was a murderer and a pig in so many ways, no arguments there.

I’m a bit curious as to why you think Henry would have me executed for saying that he guided the Church. I don’t think you know enough about the man to speculate on his actions, with all due respect. What books have you read on Henry and the English Reformation and why would he find offense in being a guide for a Church?

I recommend doing more reading on this character and the times in which he lived, looking at the Catholic offenses in England before and after Henry that stirred the pot. While the people of Great Britain were by no means ALL pro-Henry, the Brits by and large liked Edward and adored Elizabeth I. Look at the negatives on both sides and don’t just dwell on the bad character of one monarch. You’d get angry if we started up on the Medici popes, Borjas and other scoundrels, cheaters, murderers, adulterers that have occupied the papal chair so you can imagine Anglicans don’t like being defined by one overweight despot who isn’t exactly someone to be proud of.

As always, I recommend starting with J. J. Scarisbrick’s HENRY VIII.

GKC

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I knew it was coming!

As always, I recommend starting with J. J. Scarisbrick’s HENRY VIII.

GKC

 

[Jimmy_B]

Oh, Jimmy…

Hello again gurneyhalleck1,

Your quotes are in blue and my response in black. -

Oh, Jimmy, your lack of reading in Protestant studies is showing.

I’m sure you’re right about that.

*I never said that he was a “godly prince,” but that he fancied himself one as did his subjects in the Lutheran ideal. Luther defined the role of a “godly prince” in his writings. *

I know, that’s why I posted the link in my last post, did you read it? I was speaking in a general sense.

Haven’t you ever read Luther’s “Secular Authority: To What Extent it should be Obeyed?”

Yes, sounds familiar but it’s been a while.

The Protestant vision of secular leadership in the authority of monarchs, princes, etc. are laid out there. I never said I thought Henry was a great guy. That’s a strawman. I said he envisioned himself, as did the people supporting him, as a type of Prince a la Luther or in the Constantinian vein.

I hate the comparison with Constantine…

*You are correct that he did some dastardly things not only in his marital life but in the economic, religious, and political parts of his life. *

*You’re incorrect when you say he changed religious ceremonies. *

Jimmy, he was considered to have been too Catholic by the Reformed wing of Anglicanism that wanted a Geneva-style Church of England. Henry didn’t touch a thing. Latin remained the tongue of the Mass, priests faced the altar, confession was encouraged and continued, Marian devotion remained, the priesthood, rosary and other sacramentals, etc. Only difference—Henry was in charge.

Yes, in charge of the country and the Church there… I thought that you had just implied that he was merely “guiding” the Church or simply, a “secular authority”.

It was the post-Henrican era of Edward VI and then Elizabeth I that shaped a more Protestant Church of England…

This is probably true, I agree. However, I don’t know if one could say that they had more of an impact on the Reformer’s break from Rome…Your thoughts about that?

(continued on next post)

 

[Jimmy_B]

(Continued from last post)

Oh, Jimmy…

As far as the dissolution of the monastaries, sadly you’re correct. It was all about $$$ and power. Just as popes sucked the $$$ out of poor peasants with their promises of indulgences in the times of Luther, Henry was dollar signs with the real estate owned by the Catholic Church, and exploited it.

All true, which makes me wonder why “indulgences” is the deal-breaker for so many Protestants.

*He was a murderer and a pig in so many ways, no arguments there. *

*I’m a bit curious as to why you think Henry would have me executed for saying that he guided the Church. *

Because he was a ruthless tyrant, with absolute power and “guiding” seems to minimize what he probably thought his own role was. Who knows… he might have let you live.

*I don’t think you know enough about the man to speculate on his actions, with all due respect. What books have you read on Henry and the English Reformation and why would he find offense in being a guide for a Church? *

See my last response. I’m not an expert on King Henry VIII. I know more than I could ever want to. He disgusts me.

I recommend doing more reading on this character and the times in which he lived, looking at the Catholic offenses in England before and after Henry that stirred the pot. While the people of Great Britain were by no means ALL pro-Henry, the Brits by and large liked Edward and adored Elizabeth I. Look at the negatives on both sides and don’t just dwell on the bad character of one monarch. You’d get angry if we started up on the Medici popes, Borjas and other scoundrels, cheaters, murderers, adulterers that have occupied the papal chair so you can imagine Anglicans don’t like being defined by one overweight despot who isn’t exactly someone to be proud of.

I will and it wouldn’t bother me. I like this thread, because the questions here have caused me to do some research, obviously, not enough though. I don’t have a problem with anything historically Catholic… None of it changes my opinions regarding my faith. Besides that, I know a lot if it (anti-Catholic propaganda - generally speaking) isn’t true anyways… Maybe we can discuss those issues on another thread.

Thank you for your post. I always enjoy talking with you here…

 

[Jimmy_B]

Not divorce. Decree of nullity.

GKC

You’re right, thank you.

 

[Jimmy_B]

As always, I recommend starting with J. J. Scarisbrick’s HENRY VIII.

GKC

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Indulgences were the deal-breaker because they were obviously not only being used in a very corrupt way by guys like Tetzel, Rome was fleecing the $$$ of the peasantry to build fabulous works of art and some would say decadence. Indulgences are not Biblical and not part of the deposit of faith by a longshot, a medievel innovation in the eyes of the Reformers that came about post-1054 schism. They were the spark that ignited Luther’s fire.

(Continued from last post)

All true, which makes me wonder why “indulgences” is the deal-breaker for so many Protestants.

He tended to kill people who wouldn’t recognize his role as ruler over the Church of England or women who couldn’t give him male heirs LOL
Because he was a ruthless tyrant, with absolute power and “guiding” seems to minimize what he probably thought his own role was. Who knows… he might have let you live.

I find him pretty gross and repugnant myself in many ways. Though I think the way the pope dealt with him was hypocritical. Henry’s case for dissolution of marriage (I’m being careful with my wording or GKC will nail me! ) was a stronger one than some others that had been granted by other royals for lesser cases. It was political. The pope couldn’t step on the toes of a Holy Roman Emperor with ties to Catherine’s family. The pope was caught up in intrigue and politics and Henry’s pleas were bad politics at the time. Ask GKC about this. He’s more eloquent about it than I am by a long shot!
See my last response. I’m not an expert on King Henry VIII. I know more than I could ever want to. He disgusts me.

**The research is always fun. Can never hurt. It only helps us grow. I admire your desire for it. **

I will and it wouldn’t bother me. I like this thread, because the questions here have caused me to do some research, obviously, not enough though. I don’t have a problem with anything historically Catholic… None of it changes my opinions regarding my faith. Besides that, I know a lot if it (anti-Catholic propaganda - generally speaking) isn’t true anyways… Maybe we can discuss those issues on another thread.

Same here. I think you’re a good guy with integrity and a sincere desire to learn, discuss, and grow in your faith without trashing the other side. Even though you’re SoCal LOL…I bet you’re a Dodgers fan! …Bay Area fan here ya know!
Thank you for your post. I always enjoy talking with you here…

 

[Jimmy_B]

Indulgences were the deal-breaker because they were obviously not only being used in a very corrupt way by guys like Tetzel, Rome was fleecing the $$$ of the peasantry to build fabulous works of art and some would say decadence. Indulgences are not Biblical and not part of the deposit of faith by a longshot, a medievel innovation in the eyes of the Reformers that came about post-1054 schism. They were the spark that ignited Luther’s fire.

This is a little off-topic but aren’t all Television Evangelical preachers who say, “send us your prayer money and all of your problems will be solved” or “you will be healed”; aren’t they involved in a modern form of indulgence abuse? What is the last case of indulgence abuse, involving the Catholic Church that you are aware of? Don’t all denominations take money from their parishioners for church improvements? Let’s not forget that reform actually began in the Catholic Church before Luther.